Shopkeeper Alfred Jeevarajah, 45, who was jailed with his wife Anne Jeevarajah after trying to claim a pensioner's winning lottery ticket.

By Andrew Levy

When Gwyn Badham-Davies checked his lottery ticket at his local newsagent’s, he was delighted to hear he had won £10.

But the hearty congratulations offered by shopkeeper Anne Jeevarajah as she handed over the cash concealed a cynical plot to steal the small fortune he had actually won.
Jeevarajah had discovered her loyal customer’s ticket carried five winning numbers and the bonus ball – worth £156,659.

A week after lying to Mr Badham-Davies, she and her husband Alfred contacted Camelot and tried to claim the prize.

Officials became suspicious, however, because of the length of time that had passed since the winning ticket had been registered on the National Lottery computer in their shop.
Police were called in and found the Jeevarajahs could not confirm where and when the ticket had been bought.

They have now been jailed for 14 months each after Anne Jeevarajah, 38, admitted theft and fraud, and her 45-year-old husband admitted fraud.

Judge Alasdair Darroch, sitting at Norwich Crown Court, told them: "It was a flagrant breach of trust. This is the sort of matter which the public expects to be dealt with very seriously".

Relatives will look after the couple’s ten-year-old daughter while they serve their sentences. Mr Badham-Davies, 73, who has since received his full winnings, said after the hearing that he forgave the JeevarajahsHe seemed more upset about a police ban on him visiting the shop during their investigation.
"I don’t feel any malice or animosity. I see it as a betrayal", he said.
"I feel hurt about it but they made a mistake. I forgive them".
"The only thing that upset me to an extent is it really spoiled my village life".
"I loved going into that village shop. The girls who work there are really nice and there was an ongoing friendship".

Construction company owner Mr Badham-Davies normally bought lottery tickets at the Jeevarajahs’ shop in Hingham, Norfolk, every week. But on June 25 last year he picked up the winning ticket at a nearby supermarket.
He went into the newsagent’s on July 2 to buy his usual numbers and a lucky dip. While he was there, he asked Mrs Jeevarajah to check his ticket from the previous week and she said three of his numbers had come up.

Her husband, who came to the UK from Sri Lanka in 1989 and worked as an electrical engineer before taking over the shop six years ago, tried to claim the real prize a few days later.

Mr Badham-Davies found out he was due to receive a six-figure windfall only when Mr Jeevarajah confessed what had happened after Norfolk Police started investigating.

Ian James, defending the couple, told the court the family would pay a huge price, including losing their home and business.
Villagers were shocked at the case. One man, who asked not to be named, said: "They seemed a very nice couple but they have destroyed the goodwill people had for them. What they did was unforgivable".

A Camelot spokesman said: "We have information in our system which can monitor every single ticket purchased. We know when and where a line of numbers is bought and when a winning ticket is presented and scanned into a terminal. The success of the National Lottery is built on player trust and the sentences handed down provide clear evidence that Camelot will not allow that trust to be undermined in any way".

Detective Constable Sophie Getley said: "This type of fraud is taken very seriously and will be investigated robustly".

A Georgia man was slapped with a ticket and threatened with jail time after he refused to remove an American flag that’s been flying outside his business for more than thirty years.

An Albany code enforcement officer alleged that Tom Gieryic’s flag was in violation of the city’s sign ordinance. The standard size American flag was posted on a pole outside Gieryic’s automotive repair shop.

"It’s been there for 30 years," Gieryic told Fox News. "She told me my flag was in the city’s right of way."
Gieryic said his troubles started last week when a group of retired Marines showed up and offered to put up a new flag. When he returned from lunch, Gieryic was met by a code enforcement officer telling him to either remove the American flag or face fines.

The Albany city manager did not return multiple calls seeking comment.

"I was shocked, man – a complete loss for words," he recounted. "I told her I wasn’t going to be moving my flag."
He said he was told that if he didn’t comply, he could face a $1,000-a-day fine and up to 60 days in jail. But the auto shop owner decided to stand his ground.
"She stomped off to her car, got her ticket book and demanded my license," he said. "She wrote me a ticket for flying my American flag on the city’s right of way."
After Gieryic raised a ruckus with city officials, his ticket was later reduced to a warning. But he was told the flag still had to be moved – by exactly one foot.

"I’m boiling on the inside," he said. "They didn’t demand that I move it. They suggested I do it as a gesture of good will."
Gieyric said he’s received all sorts of support for standing his ground – from folks dropping by to shake his hand to others who’ve offered to help pay any possible fines.

"I got 15 business cards from lawyers offering their services," he said.
Gieryic said he wants the law changed.

"My local city manager has been more than fair," he said. "He stands behind me, but the law is the law and his hands are tied."
He blamed the entire incident on "government getting involved in areas they don’t need to be involved."

"The point is – I’m an American," he said. "That’s the American flag. That’s American soil. It belongs to me and I’m going to fly it. I’m going to fly it where I want to fly it as long as it’s not a safety hazard – and it’s not."

A new paper to be published in Ethics, Policy & Environment argues that serious consideration should be given to mass drugging the population to make them more environmentally conscious while also proposing that babies should be genetically engineered to be smaller in order to reduce their carbon footprints.

In an interview with The Atlantic the lead author of the paper, New York University bio-ethics professor S. Matthew Liao, argues that humans need to be subjected to "bio-medical modifications" in order to help combat climate change.

So lets see … Pianka would like to wipe out the global population with airborne Ebola, and now this little freak Liao wants to bio-medically modify us!

"We are not going to achieve a New World Order without paying for it in blood as well as in words and money."

- Arthur Schlesinger, Jr., in Foreign Affairs (July/August 1995).

"We shall have World Government, whether or not we like it. The only question is whether World Government will be achieved by conquest or consent."
- James Warburg, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) member.

"We are on the verge of a global transformation. All we need is the right major crisis."
- David Rockefeller, Club of Rome executive member.

Folks! … Have you read George Orwell’s book "1984" yet?
If not, do so! … If you have, read it AGAIN!

It’s been almost six decades since Orwell’s famous book "1984" was published. However, it seems as if today’s headlines are almost taken verbatim from Orwell’s mind-bending plot. Hear for yourself how everything going on today with terrorist attacks, government-induced fear, official doublespeak and newspeak, video spy cams always watching; managed news, contrived wars pop right out of Orwell’s incredible book. Amazingly, even the bogeyman himself, the infamous Osama Bin Laden, is described in 1984 to an absolute tee.

Washington: US park police detains a Christian religious activist during a pro-life demonstration in front of the White House in Washington on February 16, 2012. (AFP Photo/Jewel Samad)

﻿﻿﻿﻿﻿Just when you thought the government couldn’t ruin the First Amendment any further: The House of Representatives approved a bill on Monday that outlaws protests in instances where some government officials are nearby, whether or not you even know it.

The US House of Representatives voted 388-to-3 in favor of H.R. 347 late Monday, a bill which is being dubbed the Federal Restricted Buildings and Grounds Improvement Act of 2011. In the bill, Congress officially makes it illegal to trespass on the grounds of the White House, which, on the surface, seems not just harmless and necessary, but somewhat shocking that such a rule isn’t already on the books. The wording in the bill, however, extends to allow the government to go after much more than tourists that transverse the wrought iron White House fence.

Under the act, the government is also given the power to bring charges against Americans engaged in political protest anywhere in the country.
Under current law, White House trespassers are prosecuted under a local ordinance, a Washington, DC legislation that can bring misdemeanor charges for anyone trying to get close to the president without authorization. Under H.R. 347, a federal law will formally be applied to such instances, but will also allow the government to bring charges to protesters, demonstrators and activists at political events and other outings across America.

The new legislation allows prosecutors to charge anyone who enters a building without permission or with the intent to disrupt a government function with a federal offence if Secret Service is on the scene, but the law stretches to include not just the president’s palatial Pennsylvania Avenue home. Under the law, any building or grounds where the president is visiting — even temporarily — is covered, as is any building or grounds "restricted in conjunction with an event designated as a special event of national significance."

It’s not just the president who would be spared from protesters, either.
Covered under the bill is any person protected by the Secret Service. Although such protection isn’t extended to just everybody, making it a federal offence to even accidentally disrupt an event attended by a person with such status essentially crushes whatever currently remains of the right to assemble and peacefully protest.

Hours after the act passed, presidential candidate Rick Santorum was granted Secret Service protection. For the American protester, this indeed means that glitter-bombing the former Pennsylvania senator is officially a very big no-no, but it doesn’t stop with just him. Santorum’s coverage under the Secret Service began on Tuesday, but fellow GOP hopeful Mitt Romney has already been receiving such security. A campaign aide who asked not to be identified confirmed last week to CBS News that former House Speaker Newt Gingrich has sought Secret Service protection as well. Even former contender Herman Cain received the armed protection treatment when he was still in the running for the Republican Party nod.

In the text of the act, the law is allowed to be used against anyone who knowingly enters or remains in a restricted building or grounds without lawful authority to do so, but those grounds are considered any area where someone — rather it’s President Obama, Senator Santorum or Governor Romney — will be temporarily visiting, whether or not the public is even made aware.
Entering such a facility is thus outlawed, as is disrupting the orderly conduct of "official functions," engaging in disorderly conduct "within such proximity to" the event or acting violent to anyone, anywhere near the premises.

Under that verbiage, that means a peaceful protest outside a candidate’s concession speech would be a federal offence, but those occurrences covered as special event of national significance don’t just stop there, either. And neither does the list of covered persons that receive protection.

Outside of the current presidential race, the Secret Service is responsible for guarding an array of politicians, even those from outside America. George W Bush is granted protection until ten years after his administration ended, or 2019, and every living president before him is eligible for life-time, federally funded coverage. Visiting heads of state are extended an offer too, and the events sanctioned as those of national significance — a decision that is left up to the US Department of Homeland Security — extends to more than the obvious. While presidential inaugurations and meeting of foreign dignitaries are awarded the title, nearly three dozen events in all have been considered a National Special Security Event (NSSE) since the term was created under President Clinton.

Among past events on the DHS-sanctioned NSSE list are Super Bowl XXXVI, the funerals of Ronald Reagan and Gerald Ford, most State of the Union addresses and the 2008 Democratic and Republican National Conventions.
With Secret Service protection awarded to visiting dignitaries, this also means, for instance, that the federal government could consider a demonstration against any foreign president on American soil as a violation of federal law, as long as it could be considered disruptive to whatever function is occurring.

When thousands of protesters are expected to descend on Chicago this spring for the 2012 G8 and NATO summits, they will also be approaching the grounds of a National Special Security Event. That means disruptive activity, to whichever court has to consider it, will be a federal offence under the act.
And don’t forget if you intend on fighting such charges, you might not be able to rely on evidence of your own.

On the bright side, does this mean that the law could apply to law enforcement officers reprimanded for using excessive force on protesters at political events? Probably. Of course, some fear that the act is being created just to keep those demonstrations from ever occurring, and given the vague language on par with the loose definition of a "terrorist" under the NDAA, if passed this act is expected to do a lot more harm to the First Amendment than good.

United States Representative Justin Amash (MI-03) was one of only three lawmakers to vote against the act when it appeared in the House late Monday. Explaining his take on the act through his official Facebook account on Tuesday, Rep. Amash writes, "The bill expands current law to make it a crime to enter or remain in an area where an official is visiting even if the person does not know it's illegal to be in that area and has no reason to suspect it's illegal."
"Some government officials may need extraordinary protection to ensure their safety. But criminalizing legitimate First Amendment activity — even if that activity is annoying to those government officials — violates our rights," adds the representative.

Now that the act has overwhelmingly made it through the House, the next set of hands to sift through its pages could very well be President Barack Obama; the US Senate had already passed the bill back on February 6. Less than two months ago, the president approved the National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2012, essentially suspending habeas corpus from American citizens. Could the next order out of the Executive Branch be revoking some of the Bill of Rights? Only if you consider the part about being able to assemble a staple of the First Amendment, really. Don’t worry, though. Obama was, after all, a constitutional law professor. When he signed the NDAA on December 31, he accompanied his signature with a signing statement that let Americans know that, just because he authorized the indefinite detention of Americans didn’t mean he thought it was right.

Should President Obama suspend the right to assemble, Americans might expect another apology to accompany it in which the commander-in-chief condemns the very act he authorizes. If you disagree with such a decision, however, don’t take it to the White House. Sixteen-hundred Pennsylvania Avenue and the vicinity is, of course, covered under this act.

Praise YAHWEH !

Translate

Search This Blog

2 CHRONICLES 7:14
"If my people, which are called by my name, shall humble themselves, and pray, and seek my face, and turn from their wicked ways; then will I hear from heaven, and will forgive their sin, and will heal their land."

Quote

“The authority of the State can never be an end in itself; for, if that were so, any kind of tyranny would be inviolable and sacred. If a government uses the instruments of power in its hands for the purpose of leading a people to ruin, then rebellion is not only the right but also the duty of every individual citizen.”

Quote

“Do I "deny the Holocaust"? No! No indeed. I hope the holocaust is not denied and never forgotten. I hope the holocaust is remembered as the greatest propaganda effort and hate campaign ever waged against a civilized people. We must never forget. We must look at the despoliation of our people and our culture and ask: Why do the heavens not darken? We have lost the will and courage to defend ourselves. The time has come to commit the new blasphemy. It is time to deny the gods of the New World Order.”